Vladius

Yeah after Return of the Jedi I think general audiences were done with it. There wasn’t anything new coming out in theaters and the hype died down. Among true fans the RPG and the Thrawn trilogy started a small revival that endured through books, comics, and video games.

However I don’t think the prequels were ever “cool” at the time. People watched them because they were big budget spectacle and because of the Star Wars name, but I remember that they were not taken seriously. Jar Jar, kid Anakin, then teen Anakin in AotC were heavily mocked. So was the dialogue in all three.

Certain aspects like Darth Maul were definitely cool and had an outsized influence in merchandise. The EU continued booming with books, comics, and video games, but those were still largely limited to true fans and gamers.

I still don’t think it’s necessarily “cool” now. It’s more that it just lingers everywhere and has merchandise everywhere. There’s nothing particularly youthful about it; the same boomers that post minion memes on facebook also post/buy Baby Yoda stuff. There will probably never be the same level of hype there was during 1977.

oojason said:

Vladius said:

I thought everything was really tastefully done including the one scene with Bix, except for the over the top references to undocumented illegal alien farm workers. I get that that kind of thing could happen because the Empire is full of oppressive busybodies who love getting people in trouble for paperwork, but I think the implication that that’s an analogous situation to the US is kind of crass.

I don’t believe it is analogous situation just with the US - many of us in UK & Europe are well aware of what has been taking place in relation to long reliance of undocumented food workers (in the fields / and in restaurants / and in effect the larger ‘gig’ economy; that authorities have previously acknowledged and turned a blind eye to in the main - and yet also eager to clamp down on a whim). In the UK’s case, all the way back to Brexit and the resulting fallout from that. I can’t speak for other areas around the world - I don’t know enough about that; though I wouldn’t be surprised if people across the planet the planet… recognise what is going on in the farm field scenes… and correlate with their own similar issues in relation to the treatment of undocumented workers or refugees simply looking for safe shelter, work, and place to start a new life - and looking to integrate and contribute to that place.
 

Andor filmed from November 2022 to February 2024 (with gaps for the strikes) - before the US election in November 2024; and the resulting the re-election of convicted felon and rapist ‘Orange Man’ who you refer to in a later post.

Now, if the actor who played the Imperial officer who attempted to rape Bix had weird combed-over ginger hair and couldn’t complete his dialogue without including outrageous falsehoods or trailing off into incoherence in an attempt to deflect away from answering questions or his actions… we all may have been having a different conversation. 👍
 

Credit to everyone involved in the handling of the scene with Bix; not just the tone, content and writing - but also the stunt-work, editing and both the actors. The actor/stuntman who played the Imperial officer really hit it out of the park in adding to the realism of the scene (plus him being dazed and concussed - losing control of his faculties and bouncing off the scenery like that really added to it). Adria Arjona was superb - which is no surprise given the quality of her performances throughout the show (like so many other top talents in this series).

It’s still not a situation that’s analogous. A galaxy with countless inhabitable planets and high amounts of automation is much different from the real world in terms of what that would mean for border security and the economics of farming.

My main issue with it is that the Empire controls both whichever planet they came from, and the farm planet. Obviously they don’t want to let slip that they’re from Ferrix (which is a different problem than someone entering the US from Mexico, for instance) but it doesn’t really matter what planet they’re from because the Empire controls the whole galaxy. If they’re legally imperial citizens then they would hypothetically be able to go to any planet available to the public. If someone wants to voluntarily go work on a farm on a dedicated farm planet, go ahead, knock your socks off. It would be like someone moving between states in the US or cities in the UK or what have you. It’s completely different from citizens of other countries crossing over the borders of the US or UK.

The main reason the Empire would implement visas and such would be for monitoring purposes. They want to know who’s going where and keep track of them in case some of them are criminals or rebels. While this is one aspect of immigration law (a legitimate one) it doesn’t make sense to drag the farming labor stuff into it.

We have to import people from other planets because the lazy natives don’t want to do the work! Okay, what natives? It’s completely empty except for the people you already brought here from other planets. There’s no language barrier. There’s no ethnic issues. There’s no species issues since they’re all pretty much human. There’s not really any hugely significant cultural differences because the galaxy is already highly interconnected through space travel. There’s no state infrastructure or healthcare services they’re taking up that they wouldn’t be taking up somewhere else in the same Empire.

This is why it feels so jarring and out of place. They’re not really “undocumented” illegal in the real world sense at all. They moved from Pennsylvania to Indiana and didn’t update their stuff at the local DMV because they would get flagged by the cops for fleeing a crime scene. They didn’t move from Venezuela to Indiana and ignore the green card process because they had to find a below minimum-wage job.

Good to know you have TDS.

It is a “political” show in that it explores what authoritarian governments can be like, in a way that isn’t just applicable to a 1930s German political party. It can also be broadly applied to anyone who abuses power, and to the Foucault-like nature of modern life structured around disciplinary institutions and prisons. This is why it’s widely appreciated and not seen as “political” in the sense of being propaganda purely aimed at people living in the 2020s. Whether centered around Orange Man or any other issues.

However like I said before there is an exception to this now, with the illegal undocumented immigrants parts. For me it has a pass for now but that’s strike one.

NFBisms said:

Vladius said:
NFB I don’t know what you mean by “Star Wars’ history with SA”.

just all the sex slavery. I think the biggest offenders are the cartoons playing it coy about that being what’s going on when women are bought and sold at auctions. It’s treated very callously, like a fact of the universe - but doesn’t even center on the ugly traumatic experience of the victims like it is here. It’s just always been there because it was there at Jabba’s Palace so it’s “Star Wars”-y enough to be included. Twilek women portrayal in general was in an odd, skeevy place pop culturally until the late 2010s, and it seeps into how they were portrayed throughout Star Wars media up to that point. But even Rebels falls into making comedic light of Hera being bought and sold for ~reasons~.

At least Jabba is only shown forcibly licking and killing a Twilek slave so that he can get comeuppance later (like the Imperial in Andor). Filoni still wants you to think Death Watch is an honorable and cool warrior culture after showing them take concubines post-village sacking.

That’s true. I guess people think about it as a separate category because twi’leks are specifically colorful aliens and you don’t see people actively trying to rape them. People in and out of universe do love sexy twi’leks, especially George Lucas. (The only two characters he wanted to import from the EU lol)

It’s fine. It wasn’t made to be titillating in any way. The most kid unfriendly part of it is the two bludgeoning each other over the head until the officer has brain damage and dies.

NFB I don’t know what you mean by “Star Wars’ history with SA”.

yoshif8tures said:

Patali said:

Farm planet, boring, it’s gone.

Yavin 4, insufferable characters that are never once made relatable. It’s gone.

Mon Mothma plot, heavily, heavily trimmed.

Syril and Dedra… pretty good plot actually. Did not take up too much run time, scenes were punchy.

Agreed. Farm planet was a drag and didn’t really add much, most of it can be cut. Mon rave scene can be trimmed as well as endless chitchat about marriage problems which is irrelevant.
Yavin rebels were insufferable and I was hoping Cassian would put them out of their misery as he took flight.
i would also cut the pep talk he had with the imperial tech before he stole the fighter since it didn’t really add anything important. Also cut the imps showing a retro video since it was too on the nose n@zi. Yes we know the imps are space versions, but flat out copying them is just too earthy for me.

The retro video wasn’t a nazi thing. It was more like a 40s/50s American video and it was focused on tourism. It was a little bit earthy though.

I thought everything was really tastefully done including the one scene with Bix, except for the over the top references to undocumented illegal alien farm workers. I get that that kind of thing could happen because the Empire is full of oppressive busybodies who love getting people in trouble for paperwork, but I think the implication that that’s an analogous situation to the US is kind of crass.

Anchorhead said:

Omni said:

Maybe Cassian should’ve spent more time in the main story as opposed to lost in a side quest on Yavin for a couple episodes…

Which is exactly why I have the same problem with this season as I had with season one. WAY too much time spent doing nothing. We spent two episodes in S1 building stick & mud models of the ship hanger and two more episodes building parts of the Death Star (come on, we all new immediately that’s what they were building). This season we’ve already spent two episodes watching knuckleheads stranded in the jungle argue and play rock-paper-scissors.

And don’t get me started on the episode wasted on watching the young couple Baroque dancing for 20 minutes. WTF? The saving grace is that many of those scenes had Genevieve O’Reilly, who I find gorgeous. That said, I could have done without 10 minutes of her at a rave.

I thought the story and scenes on Mina-Rau to be the most engaging so far. Interesting side story that fits in Star Wars universe. I’ll keep watching, but three episodes in I already feel like I did three quarters of the way through season one.

I think you just have to get used to the idea that not everything is going somewhere or building to anything. Sometimes it’s supposed to just be fluff about human behavior or something.

timdiggerm said:

This thread has maybe gone off topic

It’s a topic related to the Chosen One concept in the prequels.

And does it really matter? Barely anyone posts on this forum.

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

I hate Messianic prophecies in general, or the very idea of a Messiah, because it encourages the idea that all hope for the future is dependent on one dude, instead of like, the group effort that is required in real life.

Granted, Star Wars doesn’t incorporate a true Messiah into the mythology. Vader is more like a very round-about Messiah who only saves the Universe after he fucks over the entire Universe. So it’s at least a twist on the idea of a Messiah, kind of like Dune. But I still don’t like it, because it shrinks the Universe by elevating one guy to cosmic significance. At one point, Luke was just a random farmboy and Vader was just a cyborg SS officer carrying out the will of his government. There was a backstory intertwining the two of them, but it was personal, not a matter of cosmic importance.

Nothing is really a “true Messiah” because the Messiah is from Judaism, and (except for Messianic Jews) believe that the Messiah hasn’t come yet. The actual Messiah according to Christianity was of course Jesus Christ, who was a perfect being and the only possible person who could save humanity from sin and death. Jesus specifically rejected the people who wanted him to be like the conquering hero Messiah we have in fiction. He repeatedly told everyone to repent and get their own lives in order, and didn’t fulfill their fantasies of overthrowing the Romans or making himself king in a mortal sense.

There aren’t any messiahs, chosen ones, etc. in fiction who are anything close to that. It’s just a phrase people throw around like destiny or prophecy. The concept has a very specific real world context that often gets tossed out the window.

I mean, I think most people would interpret the word “Messiah” simply to refer generically to the idea of a “Chosen One” who is prophesied to appear at some designated time and play a pivotal role in overthrowing an oppressor. The Jewish concept in the OT (Old Testament, not Original Trilogy 😉) is the origin of the idea, yes, and is also a straightforward implementation of the concept, even though mainstream Judaism teaches the Messiah’s coming is a future event. The concept obviously morphed over the years, going from a prophesied savior from the Romans in the first century modeled after the O.G. King David (with various historical claimants appearing in the first century and failing badly) to various Rabbinical reinterpretations over the years.

The Christian Messiah is a Rian Johnson style “twist” on the original Jewish Messiah concept. Paul of Tarsus was like: “Oh, you thought your Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans with his laser sword? Try again, idiots. Instead, your Messiah will appear briefly and provide free healthcare to a few random people, deliver some cool parables and magic tricks, then get arrested and killed, but then rise from the grave, thus recontextualizing all Old Testament Messianic prophecy as part of an eschatological continuum beginning with Original Sin and culminating in a “second coming” event, where the Messiah will return upgraded with new super-powers and kick lots of ass, rather than a boring Maccabee-style Jewish Warrior King who implausibly defeats Tiberius Caesar. Expectations subverted.”

If you are a Christian, it isn’t a twist on the concept. It’s the original concept that the Jews didn’t understand because they weren’t really paying attention to the prophecies.

Yeah, I understand that. Stuff like Isaiah 53 and all that. I wouldn’t say the Jews weren’t paying attention - I mean, the Rabbis analyzed all this stuff for a living for thousands of years. They just interpreted most of the Messianic prophecies as referring to the nation of Israel collectively, or to an unknown future descendant of David, rather than the specific Messiah from Nazareth named Jesus/Yeshua. The Jewish interpretation is at least more straightforward in the sense that it assumes a straightforward political coup/revolution and doesn’t require the Messiah to first die, rise from the dead, then come back to finish the job after an indeterminate number of centuries (and also doesn’t associate the Messiah with an entirely new covenant doing away with the old Laws or at least “spiritualizing” their interpretation - although some Biblical prophecies hint at this). On the other hand, the Jewish interpretation arguably doesn’t handle certain Biblical prophecies as well, mostly the ones presumably describing a Messianic figure as somebody who is meek and must suffer for the sins of Israel.

Anyway, in popular culture, a Messiah is a way more flexible concept and usually reduces to a generic “Chosen One” like in the Matrix or Harry Potter.

The professional rabbis didn’t exist until after the return from Babylon around 500 BC. Before that there were actual prophets, and Jesus refers to them murdering a prophet named Zacharias some time in the interim before the New Testament.

Yeah but those professional rabbis had already been around for centuries by the time Jesus lived, so presumably they already had fairly well-developed ideas about how to identify the Messiah when he finally arrives. Although, obviously, there were different schools of thought (Pharisee vs. Sadducee vs. Essene, etc.) about all this. According to the Book of Acts, a high-ranking Sanhedrin member even entertained the possibility that Jesus was actually legitimately the Messiah.

But arguably, the very idea of a Messiah would be mostly meaningless until at least the 6th century BC when the inhabitants of Judea were conquered and exiled to Babylon and thereafter forced to live under foreign rule. Until that point, the nation of Israel (or at least the Southernmost two tribes) had been independent for centuries, so there would be nothing to be “saved from” that would cause the idea of a Messiah to emerge.

That’s why they call it a Chosen One and not a Messiah. Messiah is a very particular cultural concept and really the only other big place you would find it is in Dune. Dune also plays fast and loose with various other religious concepts, mainly from Islam, but it’s done well and it makes sense given that it’s a mishmash of cultural elements they inherited from 10,000 years of human history.

IIRC, the actual original meaning of Messiah was just any King, any “anointed one” literally, and was used in the Old Testament to refer to “ordinary” historical kings like David’s friend-turned-enemy Saul, and even to refer to some pagan rulers like Cyrus the Great. Come to think of it, I don’t remember off hand if any of the Old Testament prophecies actually even use the word “Messiah” - but I haven’t studied this stuff for a while, so I might be wrong. I remember at least that some of the more obviously Messianic prophecies (in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) used more obscure terminology like “Son of Man” (also a later epithet for Jesus which likely just meant something like “a normal human” in Hebrew) to refer to the Messiah - but the gist of all these prophecies was basically “your life sucks now because a foreign power rules over you, and it’s your fault because you worshiped Baal and other pagan gods, but don’t worry because some day you’ll return home and your country and way of life will be restored”.

Fast forward to the 1st century AD when Jesus lived, and it seems the Pharisees (and also Jesus’ own disciples) had some pretty well-developed ideas about what a Jewish Messiah should bring to the table, and presumably it involved (at the very least) overthrowing the Roman occupation in Judea. They even already had a historical model to base this on: the model of Judas and Simon Maccabee who successfully overthrew a previous occupying foreign imperial power and gained independence for Israel about 200 years before Jesus was born.

Okay but you said “thousands of years,” which is different from a few centuries. Everything they came up with was based on prophecies, like Isaiah’s. Most of those prophecies also tell Israel that they’re going to get wrecked by foreign powers and have to repent and return, so the Messiah would not be “meaningless” just because it hasn’t happened yet. You also mentioned the southernmost two tribes were still there like the loss of 10 tribes and the entire northern kingdom to Assyria isn’t a massive deal.

I don’t know that the exact word is used in the Old Testament that we have, but it is in the apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The concept is clearly there though.

You don’t need to tell me about all this stuff, I already know. I’m not trying to be vain or anything but you’re just repeating what I’ve already said in different words. Messiah was a Jewish cultural idea, there were different interpretations of what it meant, and if you’re Christian you hold that some of those interpretations were incorrect or incomplete.

Messiah was not intended to be a general Chosen One sort of character category to be dropped into media hundreds of years later, so your original criticism that it’s all about one guy saving everyone with no one else taking any effort doesn’t make sense. If the messiah was a political messiah coming to free people from the Romans, they would still need to take part in the revolution, and if the messiah was a spiritual leader or some mixture of both, people would still need to repent and get their act together.

I’m happy they somehow picked the best one, that was unexpected

I don’t know why people get hyped to see characters like this when we already know the entire course of their life and how they die. In this case how they died twice. There’s probably some tension where you don’t know what happens to his apprentice or other side characters, but for Maul himself what’s the point?
This was also a problem with almost all the main characters in The Clone Wars too.

Yoda wasn’t telling him not to bring his weapons because he doesn’t think weapons have a purpose or Jedi shouldn’t have lightsabers, it was more about Luke’s frame of mind. That’s why he says Luke will find “only that what you take with you” in the cave. He came ready for a fight, bringing fear and aggression, so that’s what he got. The weapons were just a physical symbol.

Yeah you’re right, they were so afraid of that happening, but instead of accepting it and leaning into it they went in the opposite direction. That’s the problem. If you create Star Wars movies with the original cast returning, everyone is going to be there to see the original cast. If you do include them, it’s impossible for it to be any other way. The way you legitimize the new characters is to graft them on to what is already there, not try to have them compete in a zero sum game they’re always going to lose.

2015 was such a different time. People really were open to, at the very least, Finn being the main character and becoming a Jedi. TFA was a “good enough” movie on its own because it felt like it was really going somewhere. I think part of that was seeing the interactions with Han and anticipating the interactions with Luke.

With Indiana Jones I think it’s a special case where you simply can’t have anyone other than Harrison Ford in the role, and that goes for new characters too. As weird as it sounds I think their best chance at actually making a good movie would be to make a spinoff about adult Short Round, instead of trying to make someone who is sort of a new Indiana Jones but not really. If Shia Labeouf were way more charismatic I think it would be better, but that’s really not fair to him because it’s probably impossible to become just as iconic a character as Indy himself.

I think it is fair to say that the prequel characters were inheriting the OT, given that most of them were the same people, just earlier. You’re watching the whole thing to find out how Anakin becomes Vader, who you’re already very familiar with. Obi Wan is there, Yoda is there, the Emperor is there. The primary additions are Qui Gon and Padme. As many have said, this nostalgia bait is actually done way too much, to the point of also shoehorning in Boba/Jango Fett, Jabba, C3PO and R2D2, and Chewbacca where they don’t belong.

He’s literally me

Mocata said:

The new dynamic is just Obi-wan again unfortunately; including the death.

Right, that’s his role in the plot, but he has a much different personality and chemistry with the other characters.

Thinking about it further after I wrote it, I realized why I originally liked The Force Awakens and looked past all the stuff about it being a remake. It was the interactions of the new characters with Han. Despite everything else, that was a new dynamic. Han was back to being a smuggler again unfortunately, but now he was a believer in the Force and he took something closer to a mentor role. I’m sure Harrison Ford and Lawrence Kasdan and the rest were chomping at the bit to kill him off, but that was a big mistake. Not because you can’t kill characters or I think Han should be invincible, but because it took away one of the main things they had going for them. It’s no coincidence that the one scene everyone likes in Rise of Skywalker is when Kylo has a vision of his dad.

There is a lot of (mostly justified) complaining about the constant churn of sequels, reboots, remakes, remasters, etc. with virtually everything nowadays. As we all know Star Wars was part of this with the sequel trilogy, and everyone has pecked it to death for all its flaws.

But what are good examples of how to hypothetically do it right?

The two rare examples that I can think of that demonstrate the right way to do this are Top Gun: Maverick and Cobra Kai. Arguably they surpass the original source material. They didn’t try to just revive and remake the former stuff, they actually tried to improve on it.

In these cases the legacy actors were front and center. Their characters had developed and were placed into new contexts that suited their age and experience, but they were still the main characters and the main draw for the audience.

Top Gun brought back Tom Cruise of course, but Cobra Kai did something even more impressive, bringing back every single actor from every main character in all three Karate Kid movies (that have Daniel), with no recasting whatsoever, minus maybe the love interest from 3 I think. Every villain and several minor characters were also brought back. Not only this, but every one of these characters was given something to do. All the villains were given multiple seasons of development, and were better villains, or heroes or antiheroes, in the show than they ever were in the movies.

In addition, effort was taken to make a new generation of characters. I could absolutely see the equivalent of Cobra Kai show up in another 30 years, using the new characters as senseis. But they were integrated very closely with the legacy characters. You saw them bond and take the time to learn from them, sometimes through conflict and disagreement.

For people obsessed with “flawed” characters, the legacy characters are certainly flawed people. Daniel LaRusso is given plenty of time to show imperfection, hypocrisy, aloofness, poor parenting, and an overly rigid philosophy. There’s a subplot in the final season where he loses some faith in Mr. Miyagi because he learns new things about him, and it messes with his head. But he never stops being a good guy, a family man, and a teacher for his students. You want to see him succeed and learn because he’s still the hero and still one of the protagonists. Johnny Lawrence is always a highly flawed alcoholic, abrasive antihero but also an extremely compelling underdog story.

While I don’t think this is the right fit for Star Wars, Cobra Kai also fully develops the idea that there is room for a passionate, aggressive side in life that is just as legitimate as a passive, defensive side, and that both can learn from each other. For anyone who craves some kind of gray Jedi thing or is under the misconception that dark side = emotion, Cobra Kai is a satisfying exploration of that concept in a setting where it makes sense.

Is this to say that maybe the sequels would have been better as a TV show so that you have time for all this development and complexity? Maybe but not necessarily. Luke, Han, Leia, Obi Wan, etc. were likeable from the very first movie. The primary thing you would need, other than charismatic actors, is to have the new characters coexist with the original characters in believable ways so that the torch passing feels right.

Imagine how much more you would like Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren if Luke, Han, and Leia lived through all three movies and constantly interacted with them and each other. Imagine how much more compelling Kylo Ren would be if he were actually mentored directly by Darth Vader somehow. Imagine if they made Boba Fett a main character antihero with a fully fleshed out backstory, and he ends up in a situation where he has to team up with Han or something. (They kind of did this with The Mandalorian and it was insanely popular. I don’t mean the character of Boba Fett in The Mandalorian, I mean The Mandalorian himself as a version of what people wanted from Boba Fett.)

We can talk about the goofiness of various plot stuff with maps, Starkiller Base, Sith wayfinders, hyperspace tracking, etc. or how they messed up by not including Coruscant or explaining the political situation, etc. But I don’t think any of that would matter if they got the characters right.

Top Gun: Maverick doesn’t tell you which country is the “enemy”, it’s a vague amalgamation of Iran/China/Russia/North Korea, and you never see any of their faces or learn anything about their motivations. The setup is very similar to the Death Star trench run. But when you’re watching it you couldn’t care less because you want the characters to win and survive.

Cobra Kai is this ridiculous pastiche world where roughly 40% of the population are bullies ready to throw down at the drop of a hat, and it’s a synthwave version of California where 2010s kids still love going to arcades. Multiple psychos are willing to do anything including murder depending on what version of martial arts is getting taught to 20-30 kids at a strip mall. (It’s a lot like the memes about Yu Gi Oh and “children’s card games.”) But you don’t care because it’s well done and you like the characters. You get invested in it because they are.

What do you guys think?

NFBisms said:

“basic storytelling logic” he “should” be the wise mentor figure here who has something to teach the next generation

i don’t believe in this

That’s because you’re being contrarian on purpose.

BedeHistory731 said:

Whining about The Last Jedi is still a big red flag for me. So what, a bad movie came out that didn’t do what you wanted with a character? Move on with your life and just never acknowledge it.

The more I realize it, the more I just wish we never had sequels to ‘77.

Red flag for what?

It’s a Star Wars forum about Star Wars movies where people talk about them. Move on with your own life.

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

I hate Messianic prophecies in general, or the very idea of a Messiah, because it encourages the idea that all hope for the future is dependent on one dude, instead of like, the group effort that is required in real life.

Granted, Star Wars doesn’t incorporate a true Messiah into the mythology. Vader is more like a very round-about Messiah who only saves the Universe after he fucks over the entire Universe. So it’s at least a twist on the idea of a Messiah, kind of like Dune. But I still don’t like it, because it shrinks the Universe by elevating one guy to cosmic significance. At one point, Luke was just a random farmboy and Vader was just a cyborg SS officer carrying out the will of his government. There was a backstory intertwining the two of them, but it was personal, not a matter of cosmic importance.

Nothing is really a “true Messiah” because the Messiah is from Judaism, and (except for Messianic Jews) believe that the Messiah hasn’t come yet. The actual Messiah according to Christianity was of course Jesus Christ, who was a perfect being and the only possible person who could save humanity from sin and death. Jesus specifically rejected the people who wanted him to be like the conquering hero Messiah we have in fiction. He repeatedly told everyone to repent and get their own lives in order, and didn’t fulfill their fantasies of overthrowing the Romans or making himself king in a mortal sense.

There aren’t any messiahs, chosen ones, etc. in fiction who are anything close to that. It’s just a phrase people throw around like destiny or prophecy. The concept has a very specific real world context that often gets tossed out the window.

I mean, I think most people would interpret the word “Messiah” simply to refer generically to the idea of a “Chosen One” who is prophesied to appear at some designated time and play a pivotal role in overthrowing an oppressor. The Jewish concept in the OT (Old Testament, not Original Trilogy 😉) is the origin of the idea, yes, and is also a straightforward implementation of the concept, even though mainstream Judaism teaches the Messiah’s coming is a future event. The concept obviously morphed over the years, going from a prophesied savior from the Romans in the first century modeled after the O.G. King David (with various historical claimants appearing in the first century and failing badly) to various Rabbinical reinterpretations over the years.

The Christian Messiah is a Rian Johnson style “twist” on the original Jewish Messiah concept. Paul of Tarsus was like: “Oh, you thought your Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans with his laser sword? Try again, idiots. Instead, your Messiah will appear briefly and provide free healthcare to a few random people, deliver some cool parables and magic tricks, then get arrested and killed, but then rise from the grave, thus recontextualizing all Old Testament Messianic prophecy as part of an eschatological continuum beginning with Original Sin and culminating in a “second coming” event, where the Messiah will return upgraded with new super-powers and kick lots of ass, rather than a boring Maccabee-style Jewish Warrior King who implausibly defeats Tiberius Caesar. Expectations subverted.”

If you are a Christian, it isn’t a twist on the concept. It’s the original concept that the Jews didn’t understand because they weren’t really paying attention to the prophecies.

Yeah, I understand that. Stuff like Isaiah 53 and all that. I wouldn’t say the Jews weren’t paying attention - I mean, the Rabbis analyzed all this stuff for a living for thousands of years. They just interpreted most of the Messianic prophecies as referring to the nation of Israel collectively, or to an unknown future descendant of David, rather than the specific Messiah from Nazareth named Jesus/Yeshua. The Jewish interpretation is at least more straightforward in the sense that it assumes a straightforward political coup/revolution and doesn’t require the Messiah to first die, rise from the dead, then come back to finish the job after an indeterminate number of centuries (and also doesn’t associate the Messiah with an entirely new covenant doing away with the old Laws or at least “spiritualizing” their interpretation - although some Biblical prophecies hint at this). On the other hand, the Jewish interpretation arguably doesn’t handle certain Biblical prophecies as well, mostly the ones presumably describing a Messianic figure as somebody who is meek and must suffer for the sins of Israel.

Anyway, in popular culture, a Messiah is a way more flexible concept and usually reduces to a generic “Chosen One” like in the Matrix or Harry Potter.

The professional rabbis didn’t exist until after the return from Babylon around 500 BC. Before that there were actual prophets, and Jesus refers to them murdering a prophet named Zacharias some time in the interim before the New Testament.

That’s why they call it a Chosen One and not a Messiah. Messiah is a very particular cultural concept and really the only other big place you would find it is in Dune. Dune also plays fast and loose with various other religious concepts, mainly from Islam, but it’s done well and it makes sense given that it’s a mishmash of cultural elements they inherited from 10,000 years of human history.

The premise of the prequels is that the Republic is decaying and unraveling, and not at its height anymore, so it would make sense for everything to have a used future look as well.

Channel72 said:

I agree the Jedi should use lightsabers more sparingly. Although, the “defense only” thing is hard to salvage even with the OT alone, given that Kenobi was supposed to be a war-time General. Even in A New Hope, Kenobi violently murders those two alien thugs in the Cantina. It was self-defense, obviously, but Kenobi could have handled them in some non-lethal manner, presumably. I mean, he could have tried to “mind trick” them into leaving Luke alone, for example.

This reveals that the Jedi underwent some conceptual evolution even between 1977 and 1980, because in Empire Strikes Back the Jedi as described by Yoda are much closer to a “defense-only” Zen Buddhist school of thought, whereas Obi Wan Kenobi in Episode 4 had at least some traces of the stereotypical haughty Samurai who doesn’t hesitate to whip out a katana sword and put some unruly peasants in their place.

In practice, George Lucas sort of side-stepped the whole issue in the Prequels by making all the “bad guy minions” to be droids whom the Jedi can freely stab and slice to pieces while bypassing ethical dilemmas and undesirable MPAA ratings.

You can have both. That was clearly defense either way. The idea that everyone can disarm people pointing guns at them with fast kung fu moves is a movie/TV thing that’s just as fantastical as lightsabers, and at that point Star Wars just had one and not the other one.

Channel72 said:

Vladius said:

Channel72 said:

I hate Messianic prophecies in general, or the very idea of a Messiah, because it encourages the idea that all hope for the future is dependent on one dude, instead of like, the group effort that is required in real life.

Granted, Star Wars doesn’t incorporate a true Messiah into the mythology. Vader is more like a very round-about Messiah who only saves the Universe after he fucks over the entire Universe. So it’s at least a twist on the idea of a Messiah, kind of like Dune. But I still don’t like it, because it shrinks the Universe by elevating one guy to cosmic significance. At one point, Luke was just a random farmboy and Vader was just a cyborg SS officer carrying out the will of his government. There was a backstory intertwining the two of them, but it was personal, not a matter of cosmic importance.

Nothing is really a “true Messiah” because the Messiah is from Judaism, and (except for Messianic Jews) believe that the Messiah hasn’t come yet. The actual Messiah according to Christianity was of course Jesus Christ, who was a perfect being and the only possible person who could save humanity from sin and death. Jesus specifically rejected the people who wanted him to be like the conquering hero Messiah we have in fiction. He repeatedly told everyone to repent and get their own lives in order, and didn’t fulfill their fantasies of overthrowing the Romans or making himself king in a mortal sense.

There aren’t any messiahs, chosen ones, etc. in fiction who are anything close to that. It’s just a phrase people throw around like destiny or prophecy. The concept has a very specific real world context that often gets tossed out the window.

I mean, I think most people would interpret the word “Messiah” simply to refer generically to the idea of a “Chosen One” who is prophesied to appear at some designated time and play a pivotal role in overthrowing an oppressor. The Jewish concept in the OT (Old Testament, not Original Trilogy 😉) is the origin of the idea, yes, and is also a straightforward implementation of the concept, even though mainstream Judaism teaches the Messiah’s coming is a future event. The concept obviously morphed over the years, going from a prophesied savior from the Romans in the first century modeled after the O.G. King David (with various historical claimants appearing in the first century and failing badly) to various Rabbinical reinterpretations over the years.

The Christian Messiah is a Rian Johnson style “twist” on the original Jewish Messiah concept. Paul of Tarsus was like: “Oh, you thought your Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans with his laser sword? Try again, idiots. Instead, your Messiah will appear briefly and provide free healthcare to a few random people, deliver some cool parables and magic tricks, then get arrested and killed, but then rise from the grave, thus recontextualizing all Old Testament Messianic prophecy as part of an eschatological continuum beginning with Original Sin and culminating in a “second coming” event, where the Messiah will return upgraded with new super-powers and kick lots of ass, rather than a boring Maccabee-style Jewish Warrior King who implausibly defeats Tiberius Caesar. Expectations subverted.”

Most people would think that because they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. It isn’t “the origin of the idea”, it’s the idea.

If you are a Christian, it isn’t a twist on the concept. It’s the original concept that the Jews didn’t understand because they weren’t really paying attention to the prophecies.

NFBisms said:

Rian just had this silly Zoroastrian-inspired idea of darkness rising to balance out the light, and vice-versa, perhaps the result of a corrupted interpretation of Lucas’ vague nonsense about balance in the Prequels. It sounds like some ad hoc idea Rian invented to justify Luke giving up on the Jedi.

This take on the Force is rejected by the movie. It’s a [popular] expectation (gray Jedi, anyone?), in the same vein as EU Luke, that is disposed of to reinforce the Original Trilogy. This where it gets so messy in reception, because Rian’s engagement with Star Wars, like everyone’s, is personal and varied and doesn’t fit into a box.

He doesn’t do an idealized, super Luke because like me he saw that Luke literally didn’t beat the Emperor with his powers, he bet on his dad and his friends. The type of guy who literally did take himself out of a picture so that he wouldn’t endanger the mission on Endor. That’s the interpretation. You don’t have to agree with it or how it was done, but it emphasizes Luke for who he was, not as a trained Jedi, but a son. A farmboy in over his head, just a guy, like you or me. That’s why he resonated [to Rian, to me].

That doesn’t mean he was a “lie”, and it all has so so very little to do with the prequels, or the Jedi as an institution or even an idea. This is a trilogy bereft of any of that kind of worldbuilding or connection - we all know it - but all of a sudden that has valence in this particular critique? No, it’s a personal character arc: Luke embracing his flaws and the triumph he is capable of even with them. It’s more analogous to impostor syndrome than it is about history.

In what way is it rejected by the movie? Both Luke and Snoke tell you explicitly that’s what’s going on, and there’s a big yin yang symbol at the Jedi temple. One of the only scenes Rey has where Luke is actually teaching something is when she’s meditating and sensing all the opposites on the island: hot/cold, life/death, etc. and light side/dark side is one of those, then “balance.” You can infer that the evil mirror cave is on the island because the Jedi there wanted balance or it came to exist because the temple was there.

You’re describing exactly why Luke is the ideal and why people like him. He already overcame himself and conquered temptation. This reverses that development. It would be satisfying to see that inner growth manifest as outward physical power, sure, because that would be cool. But at the very least by basic storytelling logic he should be the wise mentor figure here who has something to teach the next generation. You’re going to say that he was. He was not. By the text of what actually happens in the movie, he was an unnecessary waste of time and effort and the big lesson he learns at the end was that he already blew his chance to teach about “failure”.

It has everything to do with the prequels. Everything Luke says is because he “watched the prequels” as it were.